Wednesday, January 25, 2017

COMPILATION OF COMMENTS BY THOMAS J. HENNIGAN ON THE NEOCATECHUMENAL WAY, PART TWO.

Posted by LaPaz, Jungle Watch Correspondant from Spain.

It's time to continue with Fr. Thomas J. Hennigan's comments on the Neocatechumenal Way. If you liked part one, I am sure you will enjoy this new post yet more. As with the wedding fest at Cana, the best wine has been saved for the end: in our case, those comments related with the Neo Second Scrutiny, the hard core of the neocatechumenal itinerary.

Source: El Segundo Escrutinio en los mamotretos secretos y el "recuento del botín" (The Second Scrutiny in the secrets mamotretos and the "count of the booty"), by Vade Retro, September 1 2012, http://cruxsancta.blogspot.com.es/2012/09/el-segundo-escrutinio-en-los-mamotretos.html

Eso de hurgar en la vida íntima y lo relacionado con el sexto mandamiento no sólo es contrario al Derecho Canónico, sino al mismo Derecho Natural. Claro, ellos dirán que su directorio está aprobado, pero hacen la interpretación que quieren. Es gravisimo.
Translated:
Thomas J. Hennigan29 January 2016, 3:25 p.m.
That of rummaging in the intimate life and that related to the sixth commandment is not only contrary to Canon Law, but to the same Natural Law. Of course, they will say that your board is approved, but they do the interpretation they want. It's very grave.

Estos escrutinios como se llevan son una barbaridad y totalmente contrarios tanto al Derecho Natural como al Derecho Canónico. Nadie, nadie tiene facultad para hurgar en la vida íntima de otras personas, y menos en la presencia de 30 o más personas, cosa reservada en la Iglesia para el Sacramento de la Penitencia y la dirección espiritual, pues se trata de cuestions de fuero interno, sea sacramental o extr-sacramental, protegidas por sea por el sigilo sea con la obligación moral grave del secreto encomendado. No está permitido ni nunca lo ha sido. De hecho, hay una prohibición del Papa San León Magno, 440-461 de que se declare públicamente los pecados, o que se presione a las personas para que lo hagan. No hay más prohibiciones de este tipo porque siempre ha parecido a todo mundo cosa de sentido común ni se ha dado este problema en la Iglesia hasta la llegada del CN. ¿Qué hacer? Pienso que si un gran número de personas escribe cartas a sus obispos manifestándoles lo que sucede, no pueden pasarlo por alto, sin un abandono grave de sus deberes y del bien de los fieles encomendados a su cura pastoral. También se puede hacer una carta con una gran cantidad de firmas. También conviene entregar tales cartas a la Nunciatura del país para que las envíen a Roma para que tomen cartas en el asunto porque esto es de suma gravedad. Si podría acudir a la prensa católica para que publiquen esto y adviertan a los fieles acerca de lo que sucede en este grupo que procede de esta manera nefasta y perjudicial para ellos para que eviten formar parte de tal grupo. Para tener pruebas sugiero que se grabe estas sesiones con un teléfono móvil y hacer un transcripción de lo que allí sucede y entregarlo al obispo y a la Santa Sede. Que se haga también con declaraciones juradas, porque ya está bien y es urgente acabar en estas barbaridades que tanto hacen sufrir a muchas personas. Me han dicho sacerdotes que trabajan en la Santa Sede que si hay una queja de parte de muchos fieles los altos jerarcas simplemente no pueden ignorarla.
Thomas J. Hennigan January 30, 2016, 1:09

These scrutinies, as they are carried out, are an outrage and totally contrary to both Natural Law and Canon Law. No one, no one has the power to search the intimate life of other people, and less in the presence of 30 or more people, something reserved in the Church for the Sacrament of Penance and spiritual direction, since these are questions of internal jurisdiction , Whether sacramental or extra-sacramental, protected either by secrecy or by the grave moral obligation of the entrusted secret. It is not allowed nor ever has been. In fact, there is a prohibition of Pope St. Leo the Great, 440-461 to declare sins publicly, or to pressure people to do so. There are no more prohibitions of this type because it has always seemed to everyone common sense and has not given this problem in the Church until the arrival of the CN. What to do? I think that if a large number of people write letters to their bishops showing them what is happening, they can not ignore it, without a serious abandonment of their duties and the good of the faithful entrusted to their pastoral care. You can also make a letter with a large number of signatures. It is also convenient to hand over such letters to the Nunciature of the country to be sent to Rome to take letters in the matter because this is of great gravity. If I could go to the Catholic press to publish this and warn the faithful about what happens in this group that proceeds in this way harmful and harmful for them to avoid being part of such a group. In order to have proof I suggest recording these sessions with a mobile phone and making a transcript of what happens there and handing it over to the bishop and the Holy See. Let it also be done with affidavits, because it is already well and it is urgent to end in these barbarities that cause so much suffering for many people. I have been told by priests who work in the Holy See that if there is a complaint from many of the faithful, the top hierarchs simply can not ignore it.


At this point, I remain silent to listen to you, people of Guam, since the moment that Rome does not hear us, former members of the NCW, if we stay just protesting "in the sacristy". Of course if we join efforts the clamor will be louder.

With all my respect, I considered I have been doing that for many years and it is enough. Before coming here, to Jungle Watch, I felt I was closed in a nice "virtual" sacristy, with its "virtual" door properly closed to ensure other people who were at the other side of that door could not hear me. 

Then I decided I had to start shouting out of there. The NCW is a global danger. It is so dangerous for a Italian young as for a Chinese mature woman. My sufferings in the Way are exactly the same as a Guamanian former member's one. Our experience is letter by letter the same.

It also means Bishop Byrnes is as responsible of the damages caused by the NCW as any other bishop around the world where the NCW grows up with their consent. This is not a pain in a finger, this is a pain disseminated by the whole body.

As it happened with the scandal of the sexual abuses committed by priests for decades, if the Catholic Church hierarchy does not want to open the thunder box then the secular society will open it. 

No matter how much Cardinal Schonbörn insists on saying there are not cults within the Catholic Church by definition, because more and more victims of cultic catholic groups do need the help of experts in cults -as it already happens- and again the Church will have to apologize some day badly and late, as always, with the evidence in front of the noses. 

This is a magnificient hot potatoe. If Rome just does not move a finger, secular society will make Rome ginger up. 

I do not want to be an accomplice of omission. I do not want even my worst enemy suffering as I did in the NCW.

Again, thank you, Thomas J. Hennigan.

19 comments:

  1. the members of the NCW and the Church depend upon the priest to protect them from such abuses. If the priest isn't performing this duty then he is seriously negligent and in error. I have known priests in the NCW that are totally convinced that everything in the NCW is legitimate and inspired by the Holy Spirit. I have met other priests in the NCW that are bullied and intimidated or simply ignored by the catacists(false catechists or Bolshie gits). In this emasculated state the priest is failing in his role to protect his flock (the neo-prol. or neo-proletariat)and in his duty to his bishop. I am not sure which type of priest is worse? Lets hope some eminent theologist in somewhere like Oxford UK can throw some light on the matter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Archbishop Myers has been obliging his own clergy to abandon their integrity once a year by telling parishioners that it is far more worthwhile for them to join the NCW scheme than any other religious activity. (The above fact took me only a few seconds to verify.)

      Delete
    2. neo-proletariat = subalterns in Gramscite terminology.

      Delete
  2. Fr I K says it is "an invasion of the inner sanctum!"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oxford UK - don't hold your breath.

    Sinister of Schönborn to say this.

    Since 1492, the entire Spanish and Latino church has become Morisco (pretend Catholic) and is deeply in heresy and messy semi-schism. Because silver plundered from the Americas bankrolled the Vatican as the Fuggers and Welsers got cold feet, through the upheaval of Luther's time and Trent, the "limpieza de sangre" mentality about other people's mentalities has had the upper hand in what passes for Catholicism ever since. Anyone with a dim and distant enough memory - wasn't there reputed to have been heavy handedness around (NOT IN) "Humanae Vitae"? Then breathing in lockstep is the belated Irish revenge against (frankly lamentable) British policies. But faint whiffs of "early fathers" and optimistic Teilhardianism are required to attract would-be "thinkers". Trouble for them is, in the end I learned to think better than they do!

    ReplyDelete
  4. spiritual direction in public by untrained laity! how has the NCW managed to carry this out within the church?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I had a lay Carmelite friend (seeking clarity on Putrid's status) actually compare the Neos public confessions to a "chapter of faults" such as that held in traditional religious orders, suggesting that it might indicate laudable humility/virtue. How to answer that without denigrating ancient religious practice? I know this public confession thing is wrong, my intuition is loud and clear, but the person who asked me is very well educated and usually spot on with theological matters. Personally I have always found the chapter of faults thing really strange and "off" but maybe that's just me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)January 27, 2017 at 5:55 AM

      The "chapter of faults" is a form of religious exercise still practiced in all the monasteries of the ancient orders, the Carmelites being of that ancient order. When the older monastic rules prescribe confession to the superior [i.e. the Abbot (male) or Abbess (female)], they do not refer to sacramental confession. It is an exercise at which the religious accuse themselves of ordinary external fault obvious to all, and of minor infractions of the rule. This "confession" may be made either privately to the superior or publicly in the chapter-house; no absolution is given and the penance assigned is merely disciplinary.

      You don’t have to disagree with your Carmelite friend in his/her comparison of the NCW public confessions to the “chapter of faults.” There are strong similarities between both practices. In fact, there are many NCW practices that Kiko Arguello “borrowed” from old/ancient practices in the Catholic Church. This is one of those practices. Yet, Kiko, while “borrowing” practices, also tinkers with them and modifies them to his personal preferred and/or the NCW way (pun intended). The issues here are (1) does the NCW’s confession have the same purpose as the original design of the “chapter of faults” described above?, (2) the “chapter of faults” is a confession of “ordinary external faults obvious to all and of minor infractions of the rule.” In comparison, my understanding is that the NCW confessions is that the Neo confessor doesn’t only confess obvious faults or minor rule infractions. In the NCW confession everything is confessed --- the obvious external faults AND those that are not. I hope the NCW responsible and/or catechists he hear these confessions do not give absolution if they are not priests since, to do so, is against our Catholic practice.

      Delete
    2. Bold, underline... the “chapter of faults” is a confession of “ordinary external faults obvious to all and of minor infractions of the rule.”

      Delete
  6. I would like to underline an essential element on that interesting comparison. A religious member of any order like Carmelites has made some specific vows before entering the order. It means that person decided freely and with her/his informed willing. In the Neocatechumenal Way that doesn't exist since the moment everything is secret for every beginer. We should insist on it because it is a perversion. Any person who wants to join a religious order has to live a period of time as a novicio and after that then freely and being informed he/she makes a decision to join through his/her vows. Kiko imposes a discipline of vows for lay people who never were informed before and never had the whole information before to make a free and full conscious decision as any member of any religious order or consecrated life group does. It is very grave.It is absolutely cultic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, LAPAZ. It was a distinction that jumped to mind as soon as I read it but haven't had time address it. Free will is the big difference here.

      Delete
    2. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)January 28, 2017 at 12:35 AM

      Excellent distinction, LaPaz. Your distinction adds to my point above. Kiko Arguello "borrows" many traditional Catholic practices and perverts it (I used the more mild word "modify") to his design. To those who practice the NCW, it makes them feel that they are engaging in Catholic practices and, from the outside, it may look as if they are. But put against the context of the entire NCW scheme, they are not Catholic practices because their purpose and intention have been altered and debased. One huge component of the big NCW scheme is the required surrender of its followers' free will. Even God has given us the gift of free will and has never, never, never taken it away. By comparison, the NCW designers take away its followers' free will and right to question as component to make the NCW system work. One word: cult.

      Delete
    3. ... Kiko Arguello "borrows" many traditional Catholic practices and perverts it ... to his design. To those who practice the NCW, it makes them feel that they are engaging in Catholic practices and, from the outside, it may look as if they are. But put against the context of the entire NCW scheme, they are not Catholic practices because their purpose and intention have been altered and debased. ...

      Spot on Rose. But far higher up the blame scale than even Kiko are those who really do know better - Morcillo and his Rome associates, Filoni and predecessors, Arrieta, Myers, those who obtain fake "approvals" for "statutes" and "eucharists", those who traffic in forged secular government documents.

      Itinerants are invariably patronising of members, outsiders and clergy. Their favourite "presbyters" (creeps) join in, and any that don't get bullied.

      I was there when my PP told the woman all of whose family members without exception were dying of Huntingdon's disease, that they were suffering for their conversion.

      His more likely. Will he waste their effort?

      As I had survived "Eucharistic Congress Lourdes 1981", I thought nothing of it. (A fake priest that was always inviting us to join his "work"; being booed by the Irish pilgrims while Cardinal O'Faeiough sat there idly; two particularly vile fellows.)

      In my old age I now think the Church is no longer to be the playground of such types.

      Delete
    4. ... that person decided freely and with her/his informed willing. In the Neocatechumenal Way that doesn't exist since the moment everything is secret for every beginer. We should insist on it because it is a perversion. Any person who wants to join a religious order has to live a period of time as a novicio and after that then freely and being informed he/she makes a decision to join through his/her vows. Kiko imposes a discipline of vows for lay people who never were informed before and never had the whole information before to make a free and full conscious decision ...

      Yes Lapaz. In fact we had been told we were "people of the ear" then we got an earful (a long lecture) then we found ourselves somehow under the impression of it. We had in effect been cautioned without being warned that we were being cautioned. That is why there is such a low drop-out rate when bishops don't explicitly release members from all ties, bonds, holds, vague promises etc. Of course the fake "statutes" don't provide for bishops to do so. Perhaps any bishop that is about to do so gets warned on the quiet that he is not allowed to do so?

      Delete
  7. NCW members are told that anything heard at a scrutiny or at a convivance is confidential and the member is bound by the secrecy of the confessional. Kiko making his own canon law here?
    All scandal and bad fruit is not to be discussed and is confidential eg. suicides, defections etc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Above all, it was looking back at the suicides that tipped the balance for me.

      Delete
  8. Fr Ian Ker said that "this is an invasion of the inner sanctum"? WOW!

    ReplyDelete
  9. To be fair, I don't know much about items of research or study in institutions in the UK. Hence, rather than say "don't hold your breath", why don't I inquire. (It will certainly take some time as there are not only the older universities but some new ones plus various institutes.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't had the energy to pursue this research as yet. The main danger is, researchers will immediately run up against "official versions".

      In practice, the NCW is "at the (alleged) disposal of the bishop" on Monday, the bishop is at the disposal of the NCW on Tuesday, the NCW is a "sodality" (without us being told what that means - near anagram of "sod-it-all" incidentally) on Wednesday, an invisible personal prelature on Thursday, a pretend religious order on Friday (without us ever being warned we were going to be alleged to have taken vows, oaths, promises, guarantees, covenants, ties, binds or bonds). Well some sort of supposed "covenants" got a nonsensical and meaningless mention eventually.

      Objectively we are not subject to any of those things but it would do a big service if bishops would explicitly affirm and publicise this fact.

      It is however sticking for 28 years just to get a taste of the ambrosia - mmm !!!

      It doesn't genuinely take 31 years and counting for some of the members to be "initiated into the church" and the general effect is to disorient members, hence the anguished comments from ex members.

      Delete

Recommendations by JungleWatch